Recently, much attention has focused on the challenges and opportunities of negotiating over Zoom, Teams, and other video conferencing platforms. Yet email—the long-standing workhorse of online communication—remains one of the most common tools for negotiation.
Whether you’re asking your boss for a raise, negotiating a job offer, requesting a meeting, or initiating business discussions, many important negotiations still happen in inboxes. Here, we look at two streams of research exploring the advantages and drawbacks of email as a negotiation medium, along with practical ways to use email more effectively today.
Quick Answer: Is Email Good or Bad for Negotiation?
Email works well for:
- Sharing proposals and documents,
- Allowing thoughtful, carefully worded responses,
- Coordinating across time zones,
- Keeping written records of agreements.
But email struggles when:
- Making requests that require emotional buy-in,
- Reading tone or emotional reactions,
- Handling conflict or tension,
- Trying to build rapport quickly.
Understanding when email helps—and when it hurts—can dramatically improve negotiation outcomes.
Pros and Cons of Email Communication: Risky Requests
Imagine you’re initiating a negotiation by asking a potential customer to hear your proposal—or you’re negotiating salary via email. How likely is someone to comply with your request?
Research consistently shows we underestimate how often people say yes in person. Saying no face-to-face can feel uncomfortable, and people often comply simply to avoid awkwardness.
Claim your FREE copy: The New Conflict Management
In our FREE special report from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School - The New Conflict Management: Effective Conflict Resolution Strategies to Avoid Litigation – renowned negotiation experts uncover unconventional approaches to conflict management that can turn adversaries into partners.
But what happens when requests arrive via email—for example, asking for a meeting, a referral, or help with a project?
To study this question, researchers M. Mahdi Roghanizad of Western University and Vanessa K. Bohns of Cornell University had hundreds of students ask strangers either in person or via email to complete a lengthy personality survey with no reward.
Before making requests, students predicted about half of recipients would comply in both situations.
Reality looked very different:
- In-person requests succeeded about 70% of the time.
- Email requests rarely received even a single response out of ten attempts.
The implication, published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, is clear: although email feels easier and safer for requesters, it is also far easier for recipients to ignore.
Today, with inbox overload worse than ever, this effect may be even stronger. When compliance matters, personal contact—whether in person or via video—still dramatically improves results.
Pros and Cons of Email Communication: Obscured Emotions
Negotiators’ expressions of emotion offer critical feedback about their preferences, offers, fears, and other information, yet emotions can be notoriously difficult to interpret accurately. It can be even especially difficult to assess negotiators’ emotions from their emails, which lack visual and verbal cues. Indeed, research shows that people are less adept at conveying their emotions in email negotiations than they think they are.
In four experiments on email negotiations, researchers Christoph Laubert and Jennifer Parlamis studied how effective negotiators are at detecting specific emotions conveyed via email, such as empathy, embarrassment, anger, interest, and contempt. In one experiment, two trained data coders who independently studied the same transcripts of email negotiations agreed on which emotions study participants expressed only about 22% of the time. Often, the coders’ judgments clashed, as when one thought a participant was expressing anger and the other thought the person was expressing interest.
In another experiment, participants in a negotiation simulation coded the emotions in the email messages they received; they, too, interpreted their counterparts’ emotions very differently than a trained coder did. Interestingly enough, across all the experiments, a computerized text-analysis program appeared to be just as bad as—or even worse than—humans at reading negotiators’ emotions accurately.
Bringing Feelings Back into Email Negotiations
Email remains convenient—especially when negotiators are far apart or juggling schedules. But to use it effectively, negotiators need to compensate for its emotional blind spots.
Three practical steps can help:
- State Emotions Clearly
Instead of assuming others will read between the lines (“Is this really your best offer?”), make emotions explicit:- “I’m feeling concerned about the timeline.”
- “I’m excited about the progress we’re making.”
- “I’m worried we may be stuck.”
Clear emotional statements reduce misunderstanding.
- Check In Regularly
Don’t guess how your counterpart feels. Ask:- “Did my last message cause concern?”
- “I sensed hesitation—am I reading that correctly?”
- “How are you feeling about the current proposal?”
Clearing the air often prevents escalation.
- Switch Communication Channels When Needed
If emotions run high or confusion appears, move the conversation:- Schedule a video call,
- Pick up the phone,
- Meet in person if possible.
A short conversation can resolve misunderstandings that might otherwise drag on through dozens of emails.
The Enduring Value—and Limits—of Email Negotiation
Email remains popular because it:
- Is convenient and asynchronous,
- Allows careful message crafting,
- Keeps records of agreements,
- Avoids pressure for immediate responses.
But compared with richer communication channels, email introduces risks—especially when trust, persuasion, or emotional nuance matters.
The smartest negotiators use email thoughtfully: handling logistics and proposals in writing while switching to richer communication when relationships or emotions become central.
What other pros and cons of email communication have you experienced in negotiation?
Claim your FREE copy: The New Conflict Management
In our FREE special report from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School - The New Conflict Management: Effective Conflict Resolution Strategies to Avoid Litigation – renowned negotiation experts uncover unconventional approaches to conflict management that can turn adversaries into partners.
Katie Shonk’s article, “Pros and Cons of Email Communication,” offers a thoughtful analysis of email’s role in modern negotiations. The discussion on how email can obscure emotional cues and lead to misunderstandings is particularly insightful. It’s a compelling reminder of the importance of choosing the appropriate communication medium to ensure clarity and effectiveness in professional interactions.
Email and texting are the lowest forms of human communication. I have a firm rule that only emails containing positive or neutral information should be sent out. If there is any negative information- face to face communication should be used to mitigate the receiver from filling in the emotional components of an email with their mental models.
Thank you for the insightful article outlining the key pros and cons of email communication. The balanced assessment of email’s advantages, such as asynchronous convenience and documentation, as well as its limitations, including lack of personal touch and potential for misunderstandings, was very informative. As email continues to be a ubiquitous communication tool in both our personal and professional lives, it’s crucial to understand its nuances and use it effectively. I appreciate you taking the time to provide this comprehensive overview, which serves as a helpful reference for navigating the benefits and drawbacks of this prevalent mode of digital interaction.
I see couples going through divorce and they often communicate c/o text. I think bc they know each other well their accurate assessments are probably higher, but still not high enough to rely on.